Rewarding the violent in the UK
From WorldNetDaily...
A new, $4.7 million cemetery in Nottingham is the first public graveyard in the UK to have all its burial plots aligned with Mecca and to inter those of all faiths in the Muslim tradition.
All headstones at the 40-acre burial site will face northeast, enabling the dead to look over their shoulder toward Mecca, the manner prescribed for followers of Islam in the UK.
Church leaders have criticized the decision by local officials, saying that imposing a Muslim model on Christians, who traditionally are buried facing east, is discriminatory....
Even Raza Ul Haq, imam at the Madni Masjid Mosque, is bewildered by the decision.
"It is part of our religion for the dead to be aligned with Mecca. It is very important. But for Christians, if they want to face somewhere else we support them," he said.
Muslims make up less than five per cent of the Nottingham region's 500,000 population.
It's one thing to accommodate various religions, but to single out one religion, that has lately been earmarked by the violence of some of its members, and force others to adhere to the teachings of that religion stinks of cowardice. It sends the message to the violent that their violence worked, and they should do more if they want society to acquiesce to more of their demands.
Then again, maybe that's the idea, after all the cemetery needs to drum up business somehow. Encouraging radical Moslems to kill more people would certainly do that.
Posted by Danny Carlton at September 25, 2006 12:12 PM
Mosel history is no less violent than Christianity's, Danny. And again, please remeber that 9/11 was caused by fundamentailists who believe in special creation and hate evolution.
Moslem history is no less violent than Christianity's, Danny. And again, please remeber that 9/11 was caused by fundamentailists who believe in special creation and hate evolution.
Rich, whether or not Christianity has perpetrated as much violence in its history as Islam (which I dispute as historically inaccurate) has nothing to do with Danny's claim that the Western governments are doing a poor job of responding to the recent behavior of the Muslim world.
Secondly, you commit a fallacy by pointing out that Creationists who disbelieve in evolution were responsible for 9-11, and thereby implying that disbelief in evolution fosters terrorism, or that Christian fundamentalists are ultimately the same as Muslim terrorists, or something similar to that.
For example: Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, and he also happened to believe that smoking was bad for your health. By your logic, are we to infer that anyone who thinks smoking is bad for your health is somehow the ideological equivalent of a Nazi? Rich, can you see why your association between creationism and terrorism is not a fair or accurate one?
Yes, I'm aware of the logical falacies, including this equivocation. Do you think that painting Islam with the terrorsist brush *might* be the same?
It's like Raaaaiiiiin, on your wedding day...
So "...one religion, that has lately been earmarked by the violence of some of its members..." is painting Islam with a terrorist brush? It's not like Moslems haven't had more than 5 years since 9/11 to distance themselves from the extremism. Instead they allow extremists like CAIR to speak for them, unopposed.
Look at your blog, all of it. Who do you think the 'enemy' is? ALCU / ISLAMS / People who don't watch Bill O'Reilly? Fundamentalism is bad because it causes people to do bad things to try and spread their world view.
Here's a clue:
If your world view is so peachy people will come to it of their own accord.
I'm thankfull that your fundamentalism has only caused you to blog. Although I weep openly for your homeschooled children, the virus spreads to another generation.
What's so ironic, Bill, is that you do what you falsely claims "Fundamentalists" do. First of all you lump all those who fall under the label "Fundamentalists" as the same, even though they are very different. That's called prejudice.
Second, you ignore what I write, and make blind assumptions based on your own bigotry about my views.
You example ignorance and bigotry with every comment, while accusing "Fundamentalists" of the same thing.
You don't think that my broad-brushing is in any way ironic, Danny? How many pro islam / pro gay posts have yoou done recently?
It would depend on how you define "pro". If you mean advocating, then none, and you won't see any. Both are not choices I advocate. On the other hand I have on several occasions defended Moslems when secularists go out of their way to provoke them, even recently (http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2006/09/back_to_antirel.php), which you apparently didn't bother to read.
When it comes to homosexuals, there are a lot of lifestyle choices I haven't commented on, why would I songle them out, unless it was being pushed in a way that violated other's rights, as in the case of the push for homosexual marriage, which would undermine the legitimacy and meaning of marriage?
Let's look at this post.
"Rewarding the violent" - bit of a leap from the article, eh? I think perhaps the mohammed cartoons would have been a better, but still tenuous example.
Do you think Marriage is a christain construct? the union of two people predates chrisitianity. Actualy, Christians are crap at it, truth be told:
Atheists had the lowest average divorce rates (defined as the percentage of people who had been divorced at least once in their lives), at 21%. Christian divorce rates averaged about 24% (higher for "born-again" Christians, ie- fundamentalists, at 27%), and even higher for Jews, at 30%.
How would gay marriage hurt you, Danny? Can't you bareto see them happy? Are you afriad they'll procreate and have gay kids?
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Do you belive this, Danny? If you do, why don't you do it? If not, why not?
The point is that we have a segment of Moslems committing acts of violence in order to get their way, then we have non-Moslems going out of their way to accomodate moslems more than they do any other religion. That's rewarding the violent. Even non-violent moslems can see that.
I never said it was a Christian construct. It is, however part of the Judeo-Christian heritage.
Of course those stats do not include couples who live together without getting married. Atheists would have a higher percentage of that, and therefore those breakups would not be counted as a divorce. I'd still want to know the source of yours stats (which you conveniently failed to provide)
I explained that. Once you open the definition of something up to anyone's interpretation, it becomes meaningless. Let's say we allow anyone who wants to to legally have themselves declared "Black" or "African-American". How would that hurt anyone? Obviously it would A. distort the unique heritage Black have as well as belittle any effort to provide affirmative action.
Old Testament law. Not applicable to Christians.
The point is that we have a segment of Moslems committing acts of violence in order to get their way, then we have non-Moslems going out of their way to accomodate moslems more than they do any other religion. That's rewarding the violent. Even non-violent moslems can see that.
- Yes, if you equivocate ALL Muslims
Of course those stats do not include couples who live together without getting married. Atheists would have a higher percentage of that, and therefore those breakups would not be counted as a divorce. I'd still want to know the source of yours stats (which you conveniently failed to provide)
- So by waiting and being more certain of true love, Atheists have somehow got it wrong?
Feel free to google the stats, or conduct your own research. We're also brighter and proportionally less of the prison population. We also give more to charity per capita.
I explained that. Once you open the definition of something up to anyone's interpretation, it becomes meaningless. Let's say we allow anyone who wants to to legally have themselves declared "Black" or "African-American". How would that hurt anyone? Obviously it would A. distort the unique heritage Black have as well as belittle any effort to provide affirmative action.
- Actaully, we probably all DO have black heritage, Danny.
'We may all be descended from a single African woman - dubbed Mitochondrial Eve - within the last 200,000 years. Male Y-chromosome DNA hints at a single male progenitor, too. Fewer than 50 people could have given rise to the entire population of Europe, experts believe.'
From
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in166
How can two people loving each other possibly diminish marrige? Let them celebrate and strengthen it.
Are you also free of the 10 commandments?